Puritan Postmil vs. Modern Postmil.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blood-Bought Pilgrim

Puritan Board Freshman
I tried searching but didn't find a thread on this exact question. I apologize if this has been hashed out before.

I generally identify as amillennial, but I haven't spent a ton of time on eschatology. As I've been researching postmil a bit, one assertion I've come across a lot is that the more "mainstream" modern postmil differs significantly from the traditional reformed/puritan stream of postmil. For those who know, I would appreciate some straightforward comparison/explanation of the differences between the two.

Any suggested reading is also welcome! (Particularly articles rather than books, as my reading list is inordinately long at the moment :book2:)
 
^ Puritan Postmil is historicist postmil.

 
Modern would be like Doug Wilson and his friends. Mathison. The theonomy reconstructionist guys.

Then there are others not of that sort who would follow a more modern view, but I can't think off the top of my head any 'popular' people who espouse besides the men above.
 
The modern type depends on seeing most (but for some reason not all) of the eschatological passages as fulfilled in AD 70.
 
I tried searching but didn't find a thread on this exact question. I apologize if this has been hashed out before.

I generally identify as amillennial, but I haven't spent a ton of time on eschatology. As I've been researching postmil a bit, one assertion I've come across a lot is that the more "mainstream" modern postmil differs significantly from the traditional reformed/puritan stream of postmil. For those who know, I would appreciate some straightforward comparison/explanation of the differences between the two.

Any suggested reading is also welcome! (Particularly articles rather than books, as my reading list is inordinately long at the moment :book2:)
I listened to this lecture by Joel Beeke just last year (it was not given last year), entitled "The Postmillennial Vision of the American Puritan", which I think will nicely touch on your question (he reflects on the influence and nuances of English Puritans and gives some helpful qualifications). The whole series of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology event I link to is worth getting/downloading. But that particular lecture I think you will find very helpful listening to: https://reformedresources.org/eschatology-in-church-history-pcrt-2010-workshops-mp3-download-set/
 
Just be careful with Beeke, his view is a/postmill lol He mixes things between the two views a lot. So you are getting a conglomeration of a view.
 
Briefly without derailing, does anyone know the real reason why RHB did not include Wilhelmus' "Not to be Ignored" as the fifth volume of his systematic?
 
Just be careful with Beeke, his view is a/postmill lol He mixes things between the two views a lot. So you are getting a conglomeration of a view.
That's not my observation of this particular lecture I listened to closely (coming from an ardent a-mil perspective but of course its not an entire course on the matter). Definitely think it would be helpful to consider (he gives disclaimers and subtle nuances I thought were very appropriate). Reminds me of another article by Kim Riddlebarger I think is helpful regarding the question of this post I also recommend which he updated last year: https://www.kimriddlebarger.com/princeton-and-the-millennium Neither resource delves into the question but I think there is ample food for thought on it within the broader context.
 
Briefly without derailing, does anyone know the real reason why RHB did not include Wilhelmus' "Not to be Ignored" as the fifth volume of his systematic?
Elshout's explanation as to why he did not translate it:

“…à Brakel’s exposition of the Revelation of John has not been included in the English edition. This exposition is by far the weakest and most controversial element of his work –à Brakel was a historical millenialist with postmillenial tendencies– and has therefore never received the abiding recognition and approbation which have been awarded to De RedelijkeGodsdienst itself. The Dutch church historian Ypeij states concerning this exposition: 'This volume is the least significant and needs to be used by the common man with prudence and with not too much confidence in the exegesis of the writer.' Los concludes: 'The public at large has unconsiously placed its stamp of approval on this unfavorable evaluation concerning Brakel’s exposition of the Revelation of John. For, as renowned as the RedelijkeGodsdienst is, in like manner the exposition which concludes the work has been relegated to oblivion.' This unfavorable evaluation of his exposition of Revelation led to the decision to postpone its translation to a future date...”

From an article he wrote on Brakel's ministry which you can read here https://frcna.org/resources/student-society-speeches?download=46&start=20

So basically, he considered it as already being relegated to the dustbin of historical theology as an embarrassing, if not somewhat interesting, artifact of yesteryear.
 
I tried searching but didn't find a thread on this exact question. I apologize if this has been hashed out before.

I generally identify as amillennial, but I haven't spent a ton of time on eschatology. As I've been researching postmil a bit, one assertion I've come across a lot is that the more "mainstream" modern postmil differs significantly from the traditional reformed/puritan stream of postmil. For those who know, I would appreciate some straightforward comparison/explanation of the differences between the two.

Any suggested reading is also welcome! (Particularly articles rather than books, as my reading list is inordinately long at the moment :book2:)
I know you said articles, not books, but the best summation I have come across of the Puritan / Reformation view is The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray.

One point to carefully note, the "modern" view is not at all the only postmillennial view currently extant - the Reformation postmil view is still predominant, at least in the conservative Scottish Presbyterian scene, and I daresay elsewhere.

I think the best high level distinction has already been given - Reformation/Puritan - historicist, contemporary US view - preterist.
 
One point to carefully note, the "modern" view is not at all the only postmillennial view currently extant - the Reformation postmil view is still predominant, at least in the conservative Scottish Presbyterian scene, and I daresay elsewhere.
Thanks for the recommendation! And yes, I'm sure you're right. By the modern view I just meant the view that seems to have become quite popular here in the U.S. among the most vocal advocates of "postmil", especially reformed baptists.
 
I think the designation of Amill is loaded. Who is the “most Amill” theologian by which we judge other Amillenialists to be more “loose”? Not all Amills agree on Matt 24 interpretation for example.
 
Hello @John Yap ,

I think there is a "standard" – i.e., consensus – view of contemporary Amillennialism, that roughly being the position held by the main proponents of the school: Greg Beale, Dennis E. Johnson, William Hendriksen, Kim Riddlebarger, Stephen Smalley, and others in that vein. It is also called the Modified or Eclectic Idealist, distinguishing it from the full Idealist of William Milligan of the 1800s, who held there were no historical prophecies in Revelation, whereas Beale and company allow there are a few.

But you are right that Matt 24 may be differently understood on some points even by these, yet without diverging in the main.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top